A Return to the Q.
This review has been divided into two parts. Initially, I planned for it to be one post, but as I started writing, I realized there was more I wanted to discuss. Even then, I still didn’t cover everything that could be addressed. I hope you enjoy this first half; part two will follow a few weeks after this post goes live, so please check back!
Welcome
Like many Leica owners, my first Leica was a Q, specifically the Q2. Those in the Leica community often refer to the Q system as the “gateway drug” to the other Leica systems. I was no different; after purchasing a Leica Q2 several years ago, I sold it and moved on to try the Leica M and SL systems. So, in 2025, a few years after my initial switch, where do I currently stand?
In this post, I will share my experience with the Q2, compare it to the Leica M and SL systems, and discuss its performance in 2025. Since many readers might be interested in choosing between a Q and an M, or a Q and an SL, I will also provide some comparisons between them.
My history with the Q2
When I first bought the Q2, I wanted a camera system that would eliminate the need for carrying a bag full of lenses and the indecision of which one to choose. Initially, I tried the D-Lux 7. It was a good, capable camera, but I wanted a little more from it. After exploring some of their other options, I decided to try the Leica Q2. I used the camera happily for a year, mainly for travel, street, and family photos. Eventually, the desire grew — it started small but became stronger.
My main complaint with the Q2 was that I needed a longer reach with my camera. I became interested in photographing wildlife and airplanes at air shows, and that’s when the Q2 started to feel limiting for me. At this point, I was hooked on Leica. Although there are cheaper and equally capable alternatives, I wanted to stick with Leica; specs are not everything.
Holding a Leica gives a feeling that's hard to put into words. They feel sturdy, like reliable tools—not fragile or cheap. A Leica helps you focus more on your subject instead of being distracted by searching for buttons and dials. The controls are minimal, emphasizing the essentials but still allowing some customization. Once you become familiar with the model you're using, you can operate it instinctively, letting you focus on capturing the shot rather than fiddling with the camera.
Over the past three years, I moved from the Q2 to the digital Leica CL, then to the SL, and finally to an M. I reached a point where I felt that an M and SL were sufficient, and I decided this would be the kit I would invest in. I have remained happy with my kit, but occasionally, I find that I miss using the Q2.
For me, there was something about the image that the camera captures and the flexibility it offered that makes it such a unique camera. Despite its 28mm lens (a focal length I find challenging), the 47-megapixel sensor provides extra cropping flexibility. The option to do basic macro shots without changing lenses was a convenient bonus I appreciated. Compared to an SL, and depending on the M and lens used, the Q is relatively lightweight. I managed to hold off the urge to reacquire a Q for a while, but the itch grew too much…
What brought me back to the Q2?
A few things drew me back to the Q2. First, I found a podcast by Iain Farrel, Prime Lenses, which covers gear and various photography topics. In several episodes, the Q pops up in his conversations with guests. Each time, Iain consistently praises the lens as unique and special and admits it sometimes tempts him to break his one-camera rule. Along with several positive comments from some of his guests about the Q, I kept thinking more and more about the Q2 I had sold off and how I missed the images I got from it. If you haven’t listened to his podcast, I highly recommend it; it’s worth a listen. Check out his webpage, Prime Lenses, for more information!
Then came the second push: a friend I go on photo walks with got an original Q, the Q typ 116. Seeing his photos and hearing how much he loved the camera really made me miss it more. But it wasn’t just envy; during our photo walks, I saw how easily he could switch from wide-angle shots to macro without the hassle of changing lenses or switching cameras. When the sunset or we stopped into a dim coffee shop, his camera handled low light like a pro. Best of all, he didn't carry a camera bag full of gear. Sometimes, yes, he would bring a second camera for specific purposes, like video, but his Q spent most of the time being used. Later, he also sent me some portrait work he'd done with his Q. Between these two influences, I was pretty much sold on the idea of the Q again.
It was back in July 2025 that I decided to get a Q again, but I wondered what this meant for my kit. Should I add it to my current kit or sell a camera to fund it? And which Q should I buy? The next part of the review aims to provide helpful insights for those trying to decide which Q model to purchase or which Leica cameras to compare.
Q vs. M vs. SL Or:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them All.
Before choosing a model, I wanted to determine if it would replace any of my existing kit (Leica M and SL). This decision would impact my budget and the models to consider. In short, am I selling anything to buy a Q?
As I mentioned in my previous posts, I will focus more on my personal experience rather than technical specifications. These days, a Google search can provide an AI-generated list of specs and comparisons, so my discussion of specs will primarily focus on what mattered to me and influenced my decision-making process.
Let’s first start with, could a Q replace my SL3?
This could be any mirrorless interchangeable lens camera, really. So, if you don’t have one, I will still try to make some relevant points. My Leica SL3 allows me to switch seamlessly between ultra-wide-angle lenses and telephoto lenses, covering every focal length I might need. So, the simple answer seems to be no, it can’t replace it, right?
This is where you need to consider your actual use and the type of photography you do. If I were traveling or mainly doing street photography and wanted a smaller, lighter camera, the Q has the SL beat.
If you rarely crop and tend to shoot in the range of 28-35mm focal lengths, the Q (Typ 116) could be a good replacement. However, if you're looking for something weather-sealed and you're okay with cropping your photos, consider the Q2 or Q3. The higher megapixels will allow for more cropping and framing options.
The higher megapixels of the Q2 and Q3 could potentially eliminate the need for multiple lenses. The Q2, with a 47MP sensor, covers a focal length range of roughly 28-75mm, while the Q3, with a 60MP sensor, ranges from approximately 28-90mm. However, cropping an image from a 28mm lens to resemble a 90mm lens isn’t going to provide the same results as a dedicated 90mm prime lens. Portrait photographers might find it important, while street or travel photographers could consider it a reasonable tradeoff to avoid carrying multiple lenses. Consider whether that difference is significant to you.
For me, my SL kit consists of the 50mm APO Summicron-SL, the 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit-SL, and a Sigma 100-400mm lens. In theory, if I stuck with a Q3 28mm, I would be covered from 28 to 90mm, and I would save a significant amount of weight. However, I would lose the capability to shoot wildlife and aircraft at a distance. I prefer shooting at 50mm, so I could even opt for the Q3 43 and still crop to approximately 150mm, allowing for some extra reach.
If I were trying to downsize my kit, the Q3 43 would cover my preferred focal lengths, it is weather-sealed, and has a flip screen. But ultimately, one of the main reasons it's hard for me to replace my SL3 with a Q is that I scored great deals on both the 50mm APO and the 24-90mm lens. If I sold them and wanted to buy them back later, I probably wouldn’t find such good deals again. But if this hadn’t happened, then I would seriously consider the Q3 43 as a replacement.
One last point I want to make is that a Q perfectly complements an SL kit. One is a larger camera suitable for almost all types of photography, while the other offers a lot of flexibility in a compact size. Additionally, the Q2 and Q3 models share the same battery as the SL cameras, eliminating the need to purchase multiple types of batteries and chargers.
Could a Q replace my M?
If I'm being honest and practical, the quick answer is...yes, absolutely. But again, it’s not that simple. When budgets are tight, the Q tends to be cheaper and gets you most of the way there. You get a Leica body and a Leica lens for one price. But again, it’s not that straightforward, and I can’t easily say one is better than the other.
If you skipped the SL section where I explain how a Q can cover multiple focal lengths—perhaps because you don’t have one or are only choosing between a Q and an M—I recommend revisiting it. To keep this post from getting too long, I won’t repeat my earlier explanations about the Q and focal lengths, please review my points on those and apply them to the M as well.
With a Q, you can enjoy a similar (though not identical) experience. One of my biggest pet peeves with DSLRs and many mirrorless cameras is that when I look through the viewfinder, my nose always touches the LCD screen, leaving oily marks behind. (If this doesn’t happen to you, you're lucky.) This is something I appreciate about both the M and Q: they only cover part of my face, making me feel like I’m not hiding behind a camera.
But they diverge here also. The M has an optical viewfinder, a window that allows you to see the scene as your eyes usually do, while the Q features an LCD screen, which provides a digital representation of the scene. When looking through the viewfinder, you’ll see exactly the image and framing you'll get when you press the shutter. A Leica M, on the other hand, requires a bit of imagination and faith when composing and focusing.
I look at a computer screen all day, so when it comes to photography, that’s the last thing I want to do, if I can. This is a huge plus for the Leica M line for me. When focusing with a rangefinder, you look at the small rectangle in the center of the viewfinder. If your subject is out of focus, you’ll see two images inside that rectangle. As you turn the focusing ring on the lens, one of the images will shift and move away from or towards the other image. When the two images overlap and align perfectly, your subject is in focus.
This sounds difficult, and yes, it does have its challenges, especially in low light and with longer focal lengths, but after some time, it becomes easier for me than focusing with a viewfinder. I also tend to do a lot of low-light or night shooting, so looking through an electronic viewfinder makes it more challenging on my eyes, switching from a bright viewfinder to a dark environment.
When I look at a screen and manually focus, it sometimes takes me longer because I keep second-guessing whether I have the right focus. I zoom in as much as I can to ensure I'm in focus, but with any electronic viewfinder, the more you zoom, the worse it appears, and then I question the focus more. Focus peaking does help, but it can sometimes be inaccurate. This is my hangup, and I wouldn’t blame it as a shortcoming of a Q or SL. With a rangefinder patch, you learn to use it and trust your own judgment. With the range finder patch, you can second-guess yourself, too, but for some reason, I can have faith that I have focus on a range finder.
To sum it up, if you want an actual rangefinder experience, you want a Leica M; if you plan to use autofocus 80 percent of the time but want to dabble in manual focus, you want a Q.
Other considerations: With a Leica M, you can swap lenses and use some very small lenses that make the camera much easier to carry, and depending on the pocket, it’s pocketable. However, you can encounter rangefinder alignment issues. I’ve owned three different M cameras and haven’t experienced this problem, so I wouldn’t stress that as a concern. Finally, you will need to practice and learn how to become comfortable with manual focusing, but when you do, using an M can be very enjoyable.
Conclusion (For now)
Coming back to the Leica Q2 has reminded me why this camera continues to tempt so many Leica shooters, myself included. It doesn’t replace the M or the SL outright, but it brings a mix of portability, flexibility, and that unmistakable Leica feel that’s tough to walk away from. The more I think about it, the more I see the Q not just as an entry point, but as a camera that can stand alongside the others without feeling like a compromise.
In the next part of this post, I’ll share which Q I chose (though you might already have guessed), how it fits into my kit today, and hopefully offer some useful perspective if you’re considering your options with the Q lineup.
In the meantime, below are some images that I have taken over the years with a Leica Q2.
Sample Images
